zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. nickff+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-01 18:17:02
I think the parent comment was making the point that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a protection is generally useful, it should be generally available.
replies(2): >>mc32+D >>banana+Eg
2. mc32+D[view] [source] 2020-06-01 18:19:39
>>nickff+(OP)
As a private citizen you’re acting on your own behalf and discretion?

Here I can’t sue mr Amash if I disagree with his bill, but I can sue him as a private citizen if he violates my civil rights as a person.

replies(1): >>codys+Xa
◧◩
3. codys+Xa[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:14:24
>>mc32+D
The immunity enjoyed by Legislators is similar to but distinct from the Qualified Immunity enjoyed by government employees.

In the case of Federal Legislators, their immunity is written into the constitution explicitly.

No such explicit provision exists for government employees.

4. banana+Eg[view] [source] 2020-06-01 19:42:35
>>nickff+(OP)
It IS generally available. If you are acting on the behalf of a private organization (and not a public one) the corporation that you work for is responsible for your actions (short of breaking the law) and not you.
replies(1): >>nickff+Vj
◧◩
5. nickff+Vj[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 20:00:15
>>banana+Eg
IANAL, but I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation. You may not be worth going after if the corporation has a lot of money and you don't, or the company may indemnify you, but you're probably still liable.
replies(2): >>pc86+ZK >>thepti+oq1
◧◩◪
6. pc86+ZK[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 22:23:06
>>nickff+Vj
The fact that you use the word "liable" is telling, because QI does not protect someone from illegal actions they take while operating as an agent of the state (or at least it shouldn't/wasn't intended to). It sets up another obstacle whereby if you want to go after an agent of the state personally for their actions, you have to be able to prove those actions are illegal before you can even start talking about their liability.
◧◩◪
7. thepti+oq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 03:59:03
>>nickff+Vj
> I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation

Probably depends on exactly where you are, but in the US the "LL" in "LLC" is "Limited Liability". (The same concept applies for a C-corp, and Europe has equivalent constructs AFAIK.)

One of the main selling points of a corporation is limited liability. If you are acting on behalf of the company you are very explicitly not "jointly" or in any other way liable for its actions. There are very specific things you have to do wrong to become individually liable; this is called "piercing the veil":

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...

[go to top]